Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Hussar]

I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers). The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame. A cleric is nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter. Not even close. Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.

If your fightery type is being rendered useless in the game by the casters, you aren't trying very hard. The range between the classes is pretty darn close.

 

[Parmandur]

I definitely do.

If we ignore 4E, which is easy to do, my advice to Paizo is clear.

"Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."

It was pretty clear during the rollout of the playtest that the PF2 design team was not overly familiar with 5E, which is concerning from a practical standpoint. They don't need to mimic 5E, bit not knowing what people are playing in the Twenty-Teens doesn't bode well for designing the next big thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers). The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame. A cleric is nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter. Not even close. Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.

DPR would be a pretty limited way of looking at LFQW, but any damaging AE can wipe enemies off the mapTotM faster than the fighter could dream of, including the Cleric's notorious spirit guardians.

So, it's "just Wizards," which includes Sorcerers and Druids... and well, Clerics who happen to use Spirit Guardians... and, BTW, Warlocks can make with fightery DPR, plus spells over and above that...

...so, really, the question is, "what have you got against Bards?"





That said, you do have a point about Clerics (and, though you didn't make it, I'll add Druids' animal companions*) not being able to show up the fighter at his own thing in 5e the way they (suposedly) did in 3e from 1st level.









* low-hanging fruit, I know, since at most were talking whatever the Druid can cast Animal Friendship on.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers). The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame. A cleric is nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter. Not even close. Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.

If your fightery type is being rendered useless in the game by the casters, you aren't trying very hard. The range between the classes is pretty darn close.

Close enough to be termed "fixed" in a meaningful way, as regards the LFQW problem. Even the Wizard, the versatility champion, faces a severe resource game that requires careful and prudent usage. Blowout novas are not a good idea, and hard to do with Concentration in place.

 

[Parmandur]

DPR would be a pretty limited way of looking at LFQW, but any damaging AE can wipe enemies off the mapTotM faster than the fighter could dream of, including the Cleric's notorious spirit guardians.

So, it's "just Wizards," which includes Sorcerers and Druids... and well, Clerics who happen to use Spirit Guardians... and, BTW, Warlocks can make with fightery DPR, plus spells over and above that...

...so, really, the question is, "what have you got against Bards?"





That said, you do have a point about Clerics (and, though you didn't make it, I'll add Druids' animal companions*) not being able to show up the fighter at his own thing in 5e the way they (suposedly) did in 3e from 1st level.









* low-hanging fruit, I know, since at most were talking whatever the Druid can cast Animal Friendship on.

But the Fighter and Rogue can keep the damage train rolling, all the live long day, with no short nor long rests needed. Sure, the casters can pull out some fancy effects, but the good stuff is on a very limited burn. If the casters are not pushed to conserve resources strategically, that's a table issue. Or not, if the table is having fun. But it is not LFQW.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the Fighter and Rogue can keep the damage train rolling, all the live long day, with no short nor long rests needed.

The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.

And, in 5e, casters can make with cantrips and rituals, all the life-long day, too.

So you are right, LFQW still exists in 5e, but it's contained to the point that is acceptable for now. It could still have a vast amount of improvement though.

First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW.
That says something about direction and design intent.
Likewise, it is not implausible to say that the effects of LFQW are contained, mainly with regard to buff-stacking (& thus DPR), which was unavoidable in order to keep any pretense of Bounded Accuracy, but it's misleading to imply that containment is to a minimal acceptable level.

5e is acceptable enough to avoid further edition warring precisely because it restored LFQW, and hasn't gone too far in containing it for the sake of BA.


But, that's 5e. On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?

 

[Parmandur]

The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.

And, in 5e, casters can make with cantrips and rituals, all the life-long day, too.

First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW.
That says something about direction and design intent.
Likewise, it is not implausible to say that the effects of LFQW are contained, mainly with regard to buff-stacking (& thus DPR), which was unavoidable in order to keep any pretense of Bounded Accuracy, but it's misleading to imply that containment is to a minimal acceptable level.

5e is acceptable enough to avoid further edition warring precisely because it restored LFQW, and hasn't gone too far in containing it for the sake of BA.


But, that's 5e. On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?

Cantrips are comparable, slightly worse actually, in damage to what Fighters and Rogues do. The Wizard who can only cast Fire Volt and Acid Splash is not going to outshine the Half-Orc Champion Fighter making three attacks with a Greatsword every round.

Rituals are easy enough to constrain narratively, as needed.

LFQW, qua problem, is fixed and no longer a problematic dynamic. In combat, it is contained. Outside of combat, it is pretty much always a better option to pursue mundane solutions if possible (Knock creates potential problems compared to just having the Rogue use his tools).

On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cantrips are comparable, slightly worse actually, in damage to what Fighters and Rogues do. The Wizard who can only cast Fire Volt and Acid Splash is not going to outshine the Half-Orc Champion Fighter making three attacks with a Greatsword every round.

Rituals are easy enough to constrain narratively, as needed.

Rituals are constrained by casting time, and "all the live long day," kinda implies a surfeit of time.

But, really, what you describe above, non-casters grinding out moar at-will damage, and casters spraying out less damage in more flavors & adding versatility of rituals - and everyone using skills, points to a reasonably balanced all-day-ling baseline.

Atop which, fighters & Rogues add Action Surge, Second Wind and Cunning Action - and casters add 9 levels of spells.

...

On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.

Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!

 

[Parmandur]

Rituals are constrained by casting time, and "all the live long day," kinda implies a surfeit of time.

But, really, what you describe above, non-casters grinding out moar at-will damage, and casters spraying out less damage in more flavors & adding versatility of rituals - and everyone using skills, points to a reasonably balanced all-day-ling baseline.

Atop which, fighters & Rogues add Action Surge, Second Wind and Cunning Action - and casters add 9 levels of spells.

...
Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!

Dealing out maor damage is probably, no joke, why the Fighter is far and away the most popular Class on the game: it's a major power fantasy. If different power fantasies can be accommodated, with everyone having fun, that is balance. WotC talks about "narrative balance," with different Classes getting their place to shine.

The topic of this thread, as to whether PF2 will be to Paizo what 4E was not WotC, is not about the mechanics. It is about whether PF2 will alienate PF1 fans or bring them along for the ride, and whether new players will jump aboard. Paizo would prefer people to stay on board, while attracting new players, rather than the opposite. Time will tell how it goes.

On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Dealing out maor damage is probably, no joke, why the Fighter is far and away the most popular Class on the game

It is not. The fighter remained the most popular class in the game, even when it was out-damaged by Raging Barbarians, CoDzilla, and a host of other things.

The mechanics of the fighter have changed, sometimes radically, in each edition, yet it's popularity has been a constant.
It is the familiar, relatable concept of the archetypal hero, that's behind the class's enduring, Class-Tier-defying popularity.

Arguably, the reason there's such adamant insistence that the fighter remain a trap option /is/ it's popularity. Were the Druid mad a trap option, people simply wouldn't play it, but the archetype fighting hero is just too appealing, so system masters get to dominate play by picking a less popular, Tier 1 class, like, oh, Druid, and new players either eventually stop playing, gratefully accept it the way the proletariat accepts exploitation by the monied classes, or graduate to system mastery, themselves.

The topic of this thread, as to whether PF2 will be to Paizo what 4E was not WotC, is not about the mechanics. It is about whether PF2 will alienate PF1 fans or bring them along for the ride,

And that was very much about mechanics and class balance. 4e eliminated LFQW and made classes better balanced than ever - if still far from perfect, with fighters still sucking out of combat, and casters still having a non-trivial edge in versatility in & out of combat - and was marked for death by a segment if the fanbase that would not tolerate that, touching off the edition war.

5e returned to LFQW and more moderated (or at least, obfuscated) caster superiority, and is permitted to seek new players in relative peace.

. Paizo would prefer people to stay on board, while attracting new players, rather than the opposite. Time will tell how it goes.

Thing us, PF never attracted many new players, it attracted resentful D&D players.

No non-D&D TTRPG has ever attracted a lot of new players to the hobby - the closest claimant might be Storyteller in the 90s, but it pulled in new players on the LARP side, where it was dominant.

And the supply of resentful D&D players is pretty limited, especially now that 5e has put all the sacred cows back in the pasture.

On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.

Ouch.